|
|
The Beginning of Post-Ideology?
  I've recently heard the terms "post-partisan" and "post-ideological" applied to Barack Obama's campaign, particularly in light of his support of the compromise intelligence surveillance bill and comments he made regarding NAFTA and the Supreme Court's DC handgun decision. As an article from Sunday's Washington Post notes (link listed below) these actions and rhetoric have caused some progressives to question Obama's commitment to a liberal agenda, while others view him as "flip-flopping" on the issues. More generally, many question what Obama's ideological commitments really are. Personally, I don't see any of Obama's recent actions/comments to be a betrayal of truly progressive ideals, nor do I view them so simplistically as to believe that he is merely flip-flopping on issues in order to court a certain segment of the population (although, I am sure that some of this is strategic, but I don't believe that they are solely maneuvers to court former Hillary supporters or those in the center who lean some to the right). I certainly do not believe that Obama's campaign is ideologically vacuous.Perhaps this is where the notion of "post-ideology" comes into play. I will not try to hazard a guess at defining what "post-ideology" entails, but I will say that in Obama's candidacy I find something that I have long suspected to be true of contemporary politics: that ideology and party politics have loosened their grip on the average citizen-voter. This does not necessarily mean that we are all tending towards an imaginary center or that we don't tend to identify with one party over another; instead, I think that it is becoming increasingly evident that we all have political commitments that cut across ideological lines. These commitments tend to manifest to different degrees under different circumstances, and it appears that no single ideology has a monopoly on the full spectrum of any one voter's commitments and beliefs. Maybe there is nothing especially new about this, but Obama has capitalized on this phenomenon; where some see a move to the center or flip-flopping, I see the realization of a campaign that is embracing the variance in (and sometimes fluidity of) an individual's belief system.William Galston has identified three core "strands" within this approach: "an 'all of us together' approach that rejects 'diversionary interests and short-term gains'...an effort to bring people together across partisan lines...[and] his effort to broaden participation in politics." I respect Galston very much, and I think that he correctly identifies central components to Obama's campaign that signal his commitment to a more inclusive and nuanced form of politics - one that seeks to recognize the legitimacy of claims made across the entire spectrum of ideological beliefs. Washington Post article
|
|
I've recently heard the terms "post-partisan" and "post-ideological" applied to Barack Obama's campaign, particularly in light of his support of the compromise intelligence surveillance bill and comments he made regarding NAFTA and the Supreme Court's DC handgun decision. As an article from Sunday's Washington Post notes (link listed below) these actions and rhetoric have caused some progressives to question Obama's commitment to a liberal agenda, while others view him as "flip-flopping" on the issues. More generally, many question what Obama's ideological commitments really are. Personally, I don't see any of Obama's recent actions/comments to be a betrayal of truly progressive ideals, nor do I view them so simplistically as to believe that he is merely flip-flopping on issues in order to court a certain segment of the population (although, I am sure that some of this is strategic, but I don't believe that they are solely maneuvers to court former Hillary supporters or those in the center who lean some to the right). I certainly do not believe that Obama's campaign is ideologically vacuous.
20 Comments:
Interesting.
And I don't believe what Obama has done is any great betrayal of liberlism. Moreover, his positions have not changed. He has said he supports NAFTA, but favors using the leverage of an opt out. He has supported a new FISA bill, but did not want to give immunity. The gun issue is a little less clear, especially since he did support a Chicago handgun ban, but he always said he believes the right to bear arms is extended to a person.
So all this talk of him flipping is just wrong. Another example of the media feeling the need to treat McCain and Obama "equally".....so they give stories about them both flipping, despite one being 8000 times more guilty of that.
whether or not he flip flopped (which i think is mostly a stupid consideration. people *do* change their minds, and i would rather they do that then steadfastly hold on to their previous beliefs merely because they don't want to "flip flop"), how would you have reacted had it been clinton that voted for the fisa bill and obama had voted against it, and it were during the primary.
just curious, chuck.
thanks.
How about this for his postion on guns. Yes, the constituion provides the citizens the right to bear arms but first the citizens have to be worthy of the right and until we can re-educate all the bitter people the gov. must protect the people from themselves.
Moreover, his positions have not changed. He has said he supports NAFTA, but favors using the leverage of an opt out.
Dude. Give some of what you've been smoking. That's untrue.
He has supported a new FISA bill, but did not want to give immunity.
But he did.
The gun issue is a little less clear, especially since he did support a Chicago handgun ban, but he always said he believes the right to bear arms is extended to a person.
So please explain his position to me.
He is definately moving to the center. The question is whether he was posturing himself to the left of his actual positions, in order to win the primary, or is he now postring himself to the right of his actual positions in order to win the general election.
I hope that he is showing his true colors now, but given his history, I doubt it.
ADA, fair question. And maybe I would be more upset at her, largely because that plays into a very true narrative about her having a failed and too hawkish approach to national security....i.e., the unforgiveable Iran vote, which arguably gives Bush powers to attack Iran.....but the thing is, this FISA vote is not on that level
Russ,
NAFTA
- your magical link is an editorial that does nothing to discredit what I said.
1) it quotes Obama saying what i said about using leverage: "I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced."
2) acts like the concept of using leverage to opt out is somehow a promise to opt out.
3) then it references the now debunked myth of the Canada discussions.
4) next, it quotes obama saying he is pro-trade....as if this is counter to anything.
5) it concludes with this conservative editorial about how he has flipped.
Nice try on that.
FISA:
he wanted no immunity. he didn't get it. so he was left with a choice....take an imperfect bill, or leave it. he took it.
If I want a BMW, but later realize I cannot make that happen, am I now precluded from buying a Corolla?
GUNS:
I don't really know his exact feelings.
The best I can do is his quote:
"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it."
and the only important, relevant restriction he is currently wants added is the assault weapons ban (renewed)
Class, CLASS!
We presently have much MUCH more important issues. Much to late to entertain wedge issues.
How about a recess from g/cubed :guns, gays, God issues , at least until we are sure that our nation is able to survive bankruptcy and enslavement to oil.
PS: ring me up if someone invents a gun that will kill bankrupcy
Chuck. Would you agree that since 12-months ago, Obama has moved from the left to the center?
Would you agree that he is doing this to try and lure the moderate voter?
Can you tell me which is the real Obama? I'm serious. I am not being snarky or mean-spirited. But tell me...which one is real?
speaking of enslavement to oil, there was an interesting piece in the christian science monitor (yes, i am a non beleiver, but i like their reporting) today about ppl driving slower and also driving less, regardless of what anyone in the govt does or doesn't do.
i am torn on the issue insofar as having cars driving slower than the speed limit impedes the flow of traffic and may cause more harm than good. on the other hand, i drive a few miles over the limit, typically, and i am still a slow car much of the time. also, in ohio, the truck limit is 55mph except on the turnpike. so ther eis already that impedence if the trucks actually are driving 55.
also, the piece makes the case of how much oil we'd save by slowing down, and how the effect would be immediate as opposed to the lapse it would take to drill or build wind farms.
and finally, this goes back to something i have mentioned before. i wonder at what price gas has to be before the general driving public actually drives around the speed limit. i have noticed a slow down of traffic as it is, but as long as i am still being passed like i am i have to wonder if ppl really are that concerned about the price of gas. i put it to a friend, and he said that he didn't think that lowering the speed limit was a good idea.
are we concerned enough as a nation about the cost and environmental impact of burning gas to support a national lowering of the speed limit, and actually slow down?
something tells me no.
i wouldn't care so much, but it's not something i am comfortable doing on my own just because of the impedence i would be and i would proably incite anger from other drivers, tail gating, etc.
is this meaty enough, petey?
Excellent Ada.
Of course - we should remember that the original impetus for the 55 MPH national speed limit was the 73-74 oil embargo, and Yes slowing down saves gasoline and maybe lives also.
I think that all of the traffic should flow at the same rate of speed. Its common sense that that is a safe situation / as opposed to those 75mph + kamikazes on I-480 that I see every day.
I have taken steps to drive less and walk more and one fellow at work is walking 3.7 miles one way to work.
I am also an advocate of T. Boone Pickens wind/alt energy ideas.
On moving to the center: Thats where its at, man...&&& we all better come together before its too late and the center is the Starbucks
Its past time to consider these things as opposed to divisionery politics as usual.
Ada, OOrah on the article reference, I think its important to realize, as the article implies, that this IS A GREAT CRISIS. Possibly requiring a civilian mobilization rivaling WWII. If we continue our path - we shall be very much poorer - as "poor" as junkies
From the article:
"There are two steps we can take right away that could have greater impact than oil from the Arctic. They are so simple and straightforward that they are seldom mentioned. But Americans took these steps during World War II, and they worked.
First, drive slower.
Second, drive less.
The savings of gasoline from these two steps would be phenomenal. (More on that in a moment.)
During World War II, Congress and President Franklin Roosevelt mandated a nationwide 35 m.p.h. speed limit. At that time, 35 m.p.h. was the most efficient speed for autos. Even more important, it helped preserve automobile tires, which was crucial because Japan had cut off American access to natural rubber from Southeast Asia."
I will put my money where my mouth is and say that I support a National 55 mph emergency law.
Show me some studies of brainstorms that would substantially inhibit gas/gluttony and I may support those too.
Kevin - If "post ideology" may mean thinking outside the box or using our brains, technology, teamwork and sacrificing to meet our problems head on.
My parents and their generation have shown us the valient routine
I am already sworn in and ready for action
Kevin,
I agree with your post. Pro-gun Democrats and the pro-choice Republicans are two examples that come to mind. The logical move or voters who feel they do not fit neatly into one political party is to declare themselves as Independents. My understanding also is that more Republicans this cycle are identifying themselves as independents. That phenomenon reinforces your theory.
Russ,
I don't agree with claims that Obama has moved center in the last year.
Every stance on the issues of NAFTA, guns, and national security (including spying) has not changed at all since he has taken the national stage.
But I do think his record has become more moderate/center compared to his Illinois record in the 90s.
I know there is some big perception out there about him moving to the middle, but it has been his moderate/center-left approach to social issues that have drawn me to believe in him (dating back to when i read about his 2004 campaign and 2006 book). I think people saying he is faking moderate positions have just not paid attention to him since he took the national stage (and i am not trying to be snarky about that).
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
托盘
钢托盘
堆垛架
钢制料箱
物流台车
手推车
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
托盘
钢托盘
堆垛架
巧固架
钢制料箱
物流台车
载物台车
手推车
手推车
轻型货架
角钢货架
中型货架
次重型货架
重型货架
横梁式货架
托盘式货架
贯通式货架
通廊式货架
阁楼货架
钢平台
精品货架
展示货架
悬臂式货架
抽屉式货架
模具货架
辊轮式货架
流利式货架
移动式货架
密集架
网片
隔离网
护栏
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
钢托盘
钢制托盘
置物柜
置物架
挂板架
物料整理架
单挂钩
直挂钩
螺丝刀架
扳手架
工作台
工作桌
线棒货架
输送辊道
辊道输送机
不锈钢制品
不锈钢推车
仓储笼
钢托盘
塑料托盘
钢制料箱
物流台车
堆垛架
静音手推车
手动液压托盘搬运车
登高车
手动堆高车
平台车
仓储货架
仓库货架
库房货架
南京货架
中型货架
横梁式货架
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
纸托盘
折叠式仓储笼
仓库笼
钢制料箱
工具柜
工作台
手动液压托盘搬运车
手动液压堆高车
仓库货架
中量A型货架
仓储货架
横梁式货架
货位式货架
托盘
塑料托盘
钢制托盘
纸托盘
仓储笼
折叠式仓储笼
仓库笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
手动液压托盘搬运车
手动液压堆高车
仓储货架
仓库货架
库房货架
南京货架
中型货架
横梁式货架
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
纸托盘
折叠式仓储笼
仓库笼
钢制料箱
工具柜
工作台
手动液压托盘搬运车
手动液压堆高车
仓库货架|中量A型货架
仓储货架|中量B型货架
库房货架|横梁式货架|货位式货架
钢托盘|钢制托盘|铁托盘|栈板
托盘|塑料托盘|栈板
纸托盘|栈板
仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼|蝴蝶笼|储物笼
钢制料箱，钢制周转箱，网格式料箱
搬运车|手动液压托盘搬运车|电动托盘搬运车
仓库货架
中量A型货架
仓储货架
中量B型货架
库房货架
横梁式货架
货位式货架
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
栈板
塑料托盘
塑料栈板
纸托盘
栈板
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
钢制料箱
钢质周转箱
网格式料箱
手动液压托盘搬运车
托盘搬运车
货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
库房货架
南京货架
上海货架
北京货架
轻型货架
中型货架
搁板式货架
重型货架
横梁式货架
托盘货架
托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
托盘
钢托盘
塑料托盘
钢制托盘
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
手推车
静音手推车
铁板手推车
物料架
整理架
挂板架
钢制料箱
钢制周转箱
网格式料箱
料箱
手动液压托盘搬运车
电动托盘搬运车
手动液压堆高车
半电动堆高车
手动叉车
塑料周转箱
物流箱
塑料化工桶
塑料卡板箱
工具柜
上海工具柜
南京工具柜
抽屉柜
工作台
工作桌
南京工作台
上海工作台
刀具车
刀具柜
刀具架
刀具座
仓储货架
仓库货架
库房货架
南京货架
中型货架
横梁式货架
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
纸托盘
折叠式仓储笼
仓库笼
钢制料箱
工具柜
工作台
手动液压托盘搬运车
手动液压堆高车
仓库货架
中量A型货架
仓储货架
中量B型货架
库房货架
横梁式货架
货位式货架
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
栈板
塑料托盘
塑料栈板
纸托盘
栈板
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
钢制料箱
钢质周转箱
网格式料箱
手动液压托盘搬运车
托盘搬运车
货架
货架厂
货架公司
仓储货架
仓库货架
库房货架
南京货架
上海货架
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
货架厂
货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
货架厂
货架公司
货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
货架厂
货架公司
货架
货架
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
仓库货架
货架厂
货架厂
货架公司
货架公司
货架
货架
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
仓库货架
货架厂
货架厂
货架公司
货架公司
货架
货架
货架
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
仓库货架
仓库货架
货架厂
货架厂
货架厂
货架公司
货架公司
货架公司
货架
货架
货架
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
仓库货架
货架厂
货架厂
货架公司
货架公司
货架
货架
货架
货架
轻量型货架
角钢货架
货架
中量型货架
次重型货架
货位式货架
重量型货架
横梁式货架
仓储货架
阁楼式货架
钢平台
仓储货架
悬臂式货架
仓储货架
贯通式货架
通廊式货架
驶入式货架
仓库货架
库房货架
抽屉式货架
模具货架
仓库货架
库房货架
汽车4S店货架
汽配库货架
货架厂
货架公司
南京货架
上海货架
无锡货架
苏州货架
货架厂
货架公司
北京货架
天津货架
沈阳货架
大连货架
货架厂
货架公司
广州货架
深圳货架
宁波货架
杭州货架
南京货架
货架公司
货架厂
仓库货架
仓储货架
货架
货架
shanghai hotel guangzhou hotel shenzhen hotel beijing hotelchina hotel 回转支承 转盘轴承 slewing ring slewing bearing slewing bearings
Post a Comment
<< Home